Talk:Krios Prime
Needs attention Krios - Someone with more information than me on this particular subject has to work on this article regarding issues like "is the klingon krios the same as the one seen in or krios prime mentioned in ? Furthermore the article needs (a) picture(s). --BlueMars 12:19, Jan 11, 2005 (CET) :The two TNG Krioses are hard to reconcile. Perhaps we should just have the two Krioses in the same article, with a similar note as the current one. IIRC, the ENT Kriosian monarch had the same spots as the "The Perfect Mate" Kriosian girl, so those are the same. So, have Krios Prime redirect to Krios, and have Krios have all info, with a note that the two TNG references could be different planets. -- Harry 19:06, 17 Jan 2005 (CET) ::I also have my doubts about Ross having ever met Gorkon, who died in 2293 ... :::Ross actually met Gowron at Khitomer-Rebelstrike2005 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (CET) ::::When Trip promises to send a message back to the sovereign monarchy and asks Khaitaana the name of her planet. "Krios..?", she emphasizes "Krios Prime" as though to distinguish it from a planet with the same name. --Vivec 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Removed :It is theorized that the Klingon "Krios" shown in "The Mind's Eye" is not the same as the "Krios Prime" we see in "Perfect Mate" and which is referred to in "Precious Cargo", due to the planet's changing appearance from blue to green and the total lack of any reference to the Klingons in the latter two episodes. However, as no information from those episodes suggests this theory, we assume it is the same planet. Theorized by who? --Alan 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC) No Evidence that Krios = Krios Other than their name there is nothing in Star Trek canon presented on this site or any other site to indicate that Krios of Klingon rule is the same as Krios of Kriosian rule. Different images for the planets are used and it would be illogical to assume a centuries long war wasn't interrupted when the Klingons conquered them. If anything the Klingon assault on the Kriosian planet would have resulted in great bloody shed and certainly have resulted in a reallocation of resources to defend from the Klingon invaders. Other than name, I ask, what supports these to planets being the same? This would be akin to saying Fayetteville was involved in the civil war. Well, which one? (Fayetteville, Arkansas; Fayetteville, Georgia; Fayetteville, Illinois; Fayetteville, Indiana; Fayetteville, New York; Fayetteville, North Carolina; Fayetteville, Ohio; Fayetteville, Pennsylvania; Fayetteville, Tennessee; Fayetteville, Texas; Fayetteville, West Virginia) The direct on screen evidence is clear. Two different planet colors. The simplest explanation? Two different planets. 08:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :I'm not immediately sure about this one.......one would think that the different images for the planet would clinch it, but it was never mentioned. Of course, would the characters need to mention it? (Wow! This Fayetteville is different than the one in Ohio!) I'm not sure where I stand yet. I've put up a pna to encourage discussion.--31dot 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::Check out Vivec's comment above: "When Trip promises to send a message back to the sovereign monarchy and asks Khaitaana the name of her planet. "Krios..?", she emphasizes "Krios '''Prime'" as though to distinguish it from a planet with the same name."'' This seems persuasive. I expect that the only reason this was scripted is that writers were already aware of the realworld potential for confusion. It looks to me like they went ahead and canonized the need for clarifying "which of 2 Krioses are you talking about". --TribbleFurSuit 17:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Further, though I don't know if it is a viable source, it is valuable in this discussion. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/places/article/69627.html 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::: The nomenclature used in both TNG episodes is too similar to suggest that two different places were meant, the people both had the same name, and the appearance of the characters from TNG to ENT were also similar. This is also without saying that a recurring writer took his turn on both scripts... --Alan 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :::: Not really, we are talking about 3 scripts. The 2 TNG's and 1 ENT. With http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/places/article/69627.html and http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/aliens/article/70645.html. There is a strong argument that they did not consider them the same. Certainly, it's the same name, there is no debate, but is it the same place? Eipy 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::: I am aware that we are talking about three scripts, but the most conflicting point (and really the only valid conflicting point) is the planets that appeared in the two TNG episodes, that again, were both home to the Kriosians and both were contributed to by the same writer. --Alan 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Other than the name, what evidence supports that Krios of The Perfect Mate is the same Krios of The Mind's Eye? Eipy 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::: What I just said.... --Alan 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :::: LOL, Alan, I can see we are getting so far. Let me address comment more specifically. You state that the only valid conflicting point was that the planets appear different. This is a major point though and is a strong visual difference while there is no dialogue whatsoever to suggest strongly that these are the same planets other than name. Having the same name does not mean they are the same place (see above). As far as having the same writer, this does not support your theory that they are in fact the same place. If anything, this would suggest that the writer liked the name and simply recycled it, not realizing he had already used it. It certainly isn't a viable sourceable argument. ::::Further, the links provided to Star Trek.com a teritiary source are explicit that they are different places. A strong sourced argument could be easily be built that the Klingons would not allow a centuries long war that was ongoing to continue in their territory which is explicitly stated in The Perfect Mate by Captain Picard in the top of the episode. That is an alternative that makes less sense than the StarTrek.com explanation. -Eipy 21:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :::::On the other hand, another official reference source, Star Trek Encyclopedia, has one "Krios" entry.– Cleanse 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :::: Eipy, you completely overlooked my other point, the thing found between the same writer thing and the valid conflicting point thing... --Alan 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) :::::Hey, for some reason I don't recall seeing that during my initial response. Weird, my bad. To respond to the statement '' the most conflicting point (and really the only valid conflicting point) is the planets that appeared in the two TNG episodes, that again, were both home to the Kriosians and both were contributed to by the same writer.''. If you are from Rome, are you not a Roman? Regardless of whether you are from Rome of Italy or Rome from Ohio? The point I'm making is the name does not prove the relationship, thus continuing to use the name to prove the relationship (simply in a different form) does not seem to have any more weight than the original argument. The fact it was written by the same writer, in terms of canon, is irrelevant. How can we discern their intention? They may have intended it to be the same place. However, it is equally possible that they didn't intend for it to be the same place. ::::In any case, you too have failed to respond to my points. I don't really want to have a battle over this. I believe they are two seperate worlds but if I can't convince you then what can I do? I looked around and the MA Style Guide says non-canon but valid sources (like StarTrek.com) can be included in a background section of an article. So that's what I'll do.